Deem v. Schumer
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-08655
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Deem v. Schumer, Judge Roman dismissed Michael Deem’s complaint as frivolous and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
Michael Deem’s action was dismissed, and he was denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. The named public officials were defendants in the dismissed action.
What happened
In Deem v. Schumer, Michael Deem sued numerous public officials, claiming they might belong to secret societies connected to a supposed “New World Order.” He asked the court to question the officials under oath and disqualify them from public office if they failed to deny those affiliations.
The court said the allegations were irrational and that the complaint had no legal theory supporting it. Although Deem represented himself, the court noted that he was an attorney and therefore was not entitled to the special consideration generally given to people without lawyers.
Judge Nelson S. Roman dismissed the action as frivolous, declined to allow an amended complaint because amendment would be futile, and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate the case.
The detailed version
- Deem v. Schumer · No. 7:22-cv-08655
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 15, 2022
Background
Michael Deem filed the action without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. He named numerous public officials as defendants, including Chuck Schumer, Kathy Hochul, Letitia James, Thomas P. DiNapoli, and others.
Deem said the lawsuit was intended to determine the defendants’ loyalty to the United States Constitution and whether they had given aid or comfort to the country’s enemies. He alleged a broad conspiracy involving secret societies, clubs, and groups that he said supported a “New World Order.” He also referred to alleged Masonic and Satanic symbols, the John Birch Society, the Georgia Guidestones, Skull and Bones, and the Free Masons. Deem sought an order requiring the defendants to answer questions under oath about possible secret-society affiliations. He also sought their disqualification from public office if they were affiliated with such a society or failed to deny that they were.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that it may dismiss a complaint as frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in fact or law. It may also dismiss a case for lack of authority to hear it or for failure to state a legally valid claim, provided the plaintiff has notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court said it must ordinarily interpret complaints filed without a lawyer generously and consider the strongest claims they suggest.
The court concluded that Deem’s allegations reached the level of irrational factual claims and that no legal theory supported them. The court also held that Deem was not entitled to the special consideration usually given to people without lawyers because he was an attorney, even though he represented himself. It determined that the defects could not be fixed by amendment.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous and declined to grant permission to amend. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Deem the ability to proceed without paying the required fees for an appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate the action and mail Deem a copy of the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.